Should the breeding of hybrid dogs be condoned/encouraged? Does it make a difference if the dogs have a purpose such as service dogs or sport prospects? Or are there enough breeds already in existence that there is no need for hybrids?

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

The Doodles, Puggles, and other mixes being bred as trendy pets get on my nerves. Seems like an easy way to make a bunch of money to me...just throw together whatever two dogs you happen to own and give it a fancy/cute name. To me these dogs are no different than a BYB pumping out purebreds that have not been tested in temperament or health.

On the other hand, I know there are some programs using Lab/Golden or Poodle mixes to create service dogs. I don't have a problem with this because they are breeding the dogs for a purpose and from what I have read it is working out well for them. I have also seen a few hybrid dogs working in protection that I really liked. Pit x AB and Pit x Mal are two very interesting crosses for me.

I guess in the end it (for me) it comes down to why the dogs are being bred. I don't personally believe in breeding for pet quality dogs because there will be pet dogs as a byproduct of working litters. So for me, as long as the dogs are being bred for a purpose and they are being tested and no papers are being hung I don't have a problem with it.

I think there are enough breeds out there, crating mutts ... oops... hybrids is just breeding for breeding's sake. Like you said, there are enough breeds out there already. Making mixes to "see what happens" is irresponsible in my opinion. The f1's are relatively predictable, but the f2's and f3's are not. More dogs to fill up shelters and rescues... As proven by the thousands of poo-dogs that are homeless already.

In relation to breeding for a "purpose" for the dogs, the same thing applies in my opinion.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

furever_pit wrote:How do you feel about the use of hybrids for outcrosses rather than the creation of a whole new breed?

As soon as you "outcross" all you're getting is mixes again. It doesn't become less of a mix because it's only done once.

For example, the reedy Doberman that you see in the show ring is pathetic... some breeders would fix that by adding in Rottweiler to "thicken up the lines" The color pattern is the same, so it wouldn't be as obvious. Instead, a better solution in my opinion is to find the lines that are still stockier and have some mass to them. They are out there. Unless it's a rare breed - a truly rare breed - most of what people want is still out there somewhere.

Now, the easy thing to do is throw another breed in the pot, and that's fine for an f1, but when you get to the 2's and 3's different things crop up. As the poo-dog breeders are finding (though not admitting.)

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

Aren't the poo breeders breeding poo crosses to other poo crosses?Or are you talking about people who bred X with a Poodle and then took it back to X for a few generations and are having issues?

I know of a few lines of AB that had Pit infused into them a few generations back. But once a dog is 7/8 AB (that's three generations, only two generations out from the outcross) it is considered "purebred". Other than the color of the dog being a disqualification in the show ring, I have not heard of or seen any real ill effects from the outcross.

If the two dogs being bred, even though from different breeds, have been tested for health and temperament issues I'm not sure you would get anything negative from the breeding. Now just blindly sticking my male X with your female Y with no understanding of the dogs that came before them, their health, or their working ability...well that's a gamble no matter what the breed.

Since it almost goes hand in hand, how do you feel about line or inbreeding? Sorry if I take this discussion way off track. I am just fascinated by breeding and the science behind it. I'm a dork that way.

Yes. And the poo-lab x poo-lab (both f1's) do not create the same results in the f2 breeding as in the f1. The whole point of breeds is consistancy, the f1's have recessives for their coats that don't duplicate in the f2's. Yes, by the numbers they are producing 50/50 mixes, but the actual dogs themselves don't look that way.

I know of a few lines of AB that had Pit infused into them a few generations back. But once a dog is 7/8 AB (that's three generations, only two generations out from the outcross) it is considered "purebred". Other than the color of the dog being a disqualification in the show ring, I have not heard of or seen any real ill effects from the outcross.

Considered pure bred by who? What registry? Not AKC or UKC as far as I know.

If the two dogs being bred, even though from different breeds, have been tested for health and temperament issues I'm not sure you would get anything negative from the breeding. Now just blindly sticking my male X with your female Y with no understanding of the dogs that came before them, their health, or their working ability...well that's a gamble no matter what the breed.

Perhaps not in f1, but f2 is a different story.

Since it almost goes hand in hand, how do you feel about line or inbreeding? Sorry if I take this discussion way off track. I am just fascinated by breeding and the science behind it. I'm a dork that way.

done correctly, and with solid research, not a big deal. however, without solid research on the lines you are doubling up on genes that could turn out a lot of bad stuff. Inbreeding creates extremes, so anyone doing that had better be culling.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

On the other hand, I know there are some programs using Lab/Golden or Poodle mixes to create service dogs. I don't have a problem with this because they are breeding the dogs for a purpose and from what I have read it is working out well for them.

I don't really see a point. Labradors, German Shepherds, etc have been service dogs for years. Why is there a need for a new cross? There are even mutts being used these days as service animals, guide dogs, and search and rescue dogs. It doesn't really seem to be the breed so much as the temperment and intelligence of the dogs which is required for the job. Even with a "purpose" like that, why create a new breed when you can use the ones we have? I'm not anti- new breed of dog but there is already a wide range and variety, and again skills aren't necessarily breed specific, so why purposefully make a new cross to do a job another breed has been doing for years?

Instead, a better solution in my opinion is to find the lines that are still stockier and have some mass to them. They are out there. Unless it's a rare breed - a truly rare breed - most of what people want is still out there somewhere.

I agree with this a lot. That is how the "miniature" and "standard" sizes came to be, they bred larger dogs to larger dogs, smaller dogs to smaller dogs to get the sizes they wanted.

As for line breeding/inbreeding I don't have a clue. They do line breeding in Thoroughbreds a lot... I've never really understood it but I'm not that up on genetics.

mnp13 wrote:Considered pure bred by who? What registry? Not AKC or UKC as far as I know.

The AKC does not recognize the American Bulldog as far as I know. I don't know any ABs that are registered with the UKC. The 7/8ths rule is with the NKC.

mnp13 wrote:done correctly, and with solid research, not a big deal. however, without solid research on the lines you are doubling up on genes that could turn out a lot of bad stuff. Inbreeding creates extremes, so anyone doing that had better be culling.

Totally agree. Inbreeding lets you know where your lines are. It will reveal the worst of the worst, so you have to be willing to do the dirty work. But linebreeding and inbreeding also locks in characteristics. I think it is a great tool as long as the breeder knows what they are doing and are willing to deal with the consequences. But then again I think culling is part of responsible breeding anyway.

Since we're switching gears here a bit, how about when another breed is bred in temporarily to reduce the need to dock or crop? Was it the Boxer that had something else bred in to one line so their tails naturally came in short? And then I believe they were able to breed those naturally short-tailed Boxers to others and it continued. And didn't a line of Dalmations have something mixed in to prevent kidney or bladder problems or whatever it is they get?

Back to the original question, I'm torn on it. I hate "hybrid as designer dog" breeding. No ifs ands or buts. I'm slightly more torn on the breeding for sport. I don't like it at all, but I can't rationalize an argument as to why, which I know is silly. But I think breeding for sport is going to create a lot of crazy dogs that would be hell in a non-sport home. And I know people argue that dogs being bred for sport ALL go to sport homes, but I have trouble believing that.

And on a side note, I HATE DETEST LOATHE mixing a pit bull with a guardian breed of any type, whether it's an AB or a Mal. One of the things that makes a pit a pit is its friendliness to strangers, and I fear that breeding in cautious/less friendly dogs is going to create a lot of very strong, not friendly dogs that look like pit bulls and will be labeled as such by the media.

"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

I've never heard that boxers have a short tail naturally, they are all docked as far as I've ever heard. Even "tail less" breeds occasionally put out a full length tail. And it's the same as an other breeding, the odds of someone doing all of their homework to find the perfect match for their dog, and that match also has a short tail is pretty small.

I'm slightly more torn on the breeding for sport. I don't like it at all, but I can't rationalize an argument as to why, which I know is silly. But I think breeding for sport is going to create a lot of crazy dogs that would be hell in a non-sport home.

They are hell in sport homes. "Malinois spin" is an actual term - for dogs that are so amped all the time that they whirl in circles in their crates.

And I know people argue that dogs being bred for sport ALL go to sport homes, but I have trouble believing that.

And I don't believe it either.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

I am up to my eyeballs in alligators trying to get my web site up, so I only scanned through this topic. It's one that's been discussed at length on several blogs I read. I found some rather interesting information in the links I am posting below.

One of the things that I didn't know is that the AKC & UKC had closed the stud books on many breeds of dogs, so that if your dog is not descended from dogs registered in their stud books, you can't register your dog with that registry. In other words, they don't allow any new blood into the breed.

They are so worried about keeping the breed of dog "pure" that they are perpetuating many genetic faults in these dogs.

I don't understand genetics all that well, but this I understood loud & clear:

It's apparently a common belief among dog breeders that you can somehow improve the breed by removing diversity. This doesn't make sense. If you fart in a sealed room, you can't make the smell go away by farting more. You open a window for new air.

Scottie (Retrieverman) knows alot about dog history, I've joined in his chat sessions and learned quite a bit. Hands down, he is probably one the most knowledgeable people about the history of dogs that I have come across. I want to pick his brain and raid his library.

Jess of Desert Wind Hounds also has some great reading. Her breeding project is rather interesting. She has given the "Breed Elitists" the middle finger and embarked on an interesting course in breeding sight hounds. I plan on watching this for awhile because I am really interested in the outcome. http://desertwindhounds.blogspot.com/

There are PLENTY of pure bred dogs in other registries that could be added to the AKC gene pool to fix the genetic nightmares that many of the lines have become. But of course, that's logic, and they don't really operate using logic.

I agree that outcrossing can create healthier dogs, (can being the operative word) but the question is mix breeds here. And a dog that is 1/8 not "Pit Bull" is not a Pit Bull, it's a mix.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

On the other hand, I know there are some programs using Lab/Golden or Poodle mixes to create service dogs. I don't have a problem with this because they are breeding the dogs for a purpose and from what I have read it is working out well for them. I don't really see a point. Labradors, German Shepherds, etc have been service dogs for years. Why is there a need for a new cross?

The Labradoodle was first deliberately bred in Australia in 1989, when Wally Conron of Royal Guide Dogs Association of Melbourne received a letter from a woman in Hawaii who needed a non-shedding service dog due to her husbands severe allergies to pet dander.Mr Conron had the brilliant idea of combining the Labrador Retriever with the Standard Poodle. His goal was to combine the low-shedding coat of the Poodle with the gentleness and trainability of the Labrador ultimately providing a Guide/Service Dog suitable for people with allergies to fur and dander.

I don't have a problem with hybrids per se, especially if they are bred for a purpose (which, over time, is the way the breeds we think of as pure breeds developed). I would not buy a malti-poo, shih-poo, etc., but if someone wanted that specific cross because they really liked the look of the dog, and let's face it, that's why many people pick pet dogs, it doesn't bother me. What I do have a problem with is the way most of these hybrids are sold. Puppy-mill style and byb's, all in it to make a $. There are bad people with any breed, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a good breeder who does it for the love of their "breed." Few health tests, probably not bred for temperament...lots of hey, you have a maltese, I have a toy poodle, let's make some money, going on. Someone willing to ship one of their puppies cross country to someone they know only via an internet application. People who know squat about dogs picking up an unpredictable, unhealthy mess. THAT is my bigger issue with it. Nor would I ever spend the money on a "designer" dog, as I believe it is still a mutt and I could get one a hell of a lot cheaper (and probably healthier) at the shelter. Sport hybrids may be ok, especially with a good amount of testiing and care. It's tough because, since there aren't enough fixed genes, you never really know what you're going to get (hence them not being actual, recognized breeds yet). '

So, in my long-winded answer. Yes, I think it is ok with a specific purpose in mind. I'm not philosophically opposed to the idea of a hybrid pet (at least not now, ask me again in an hour), but don't see the point (especially financially), and don't like the practices surrounding it.

Again though, why create an entire new breed? Why not just use a poodle as your service dog? In the clinic I work at we have two Standard poodles from the same family that are weird/aloof/unfriendly/bad to handle, but the majority of standards and even minis and toys that come in have great personalities. Even when you cross the two you don't guarantee that the dog is going to have a poodle coat and a lab personality. Poodles are very intelligent and pretty personable. If it has to do with grooming many labradoodles have to be groomed because the hair coat is more poodle-like.

I guess I don't see the point in charging up the butt for what is essentially a mutt. You see all kinds of crosses coming up Pug/Bostons - yeah that totally screams healthy. Jack Russel Terrier/Pug - talk about hyper, Pug/Beagle - those dogs won't get fat. I don't really think many of these crosses serve a purpose other than being cute/the in thing right now.

Again though, why create an entire new breed? Why not just use a poodle as your service dog? In the clinic I work at we have two Standard poodles from the same family that are weird/aloof/unfriendly/bad to handle, but the majority of standards and even minis and toys that come in have great personalities. Even when you cross the two you don't guarantee that the dog is going to have a poodle coat and a lab personality. Poodles are very intelligent and pretty personable. If it has to do with grooming many labradoodles have to be groomed because the hair coat is more poodle-like.

As for Service Dogs...the labradoodle was created to make a low-allergen SD...but like you said, WHY not use a poodle? If you want bigger dogs, breed bigger poodles. WTF would you create this idiotic shaggy beast that doesn't work out most times and requires as much, if not more, grooming. I've not heard of many SD groups going with doodles...and the ones that have don't have a TON of success with them...they're hit or miss just like the other breeds. Labs and goldens and poodles if needed are still the best choices for SDs for organizations, imho.

I hate the idea of designer dogs regardless of WHY. We see TONS of them in flyball...border-jacks (border collie/jack russell terrier), border-staffy (BC/staffordshire bull terrier), whippet mixes, etc. I just don't get it...and I can't imagine living with such a creature. And, yes enough come through rescues, that they're not *all* in sport homes. I show up with my stray brown puppy and beat the pants off of many of them too.

And...as for the breeding tail-less dogs...it's very, very tricky. From what I know, you run the risk of spinal defects and problems if you breed for short/no tails.

"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw

If you want bigger dogs, breed bigger poodles. WTF would you create this idiotic shaggy beast that doesn't work out most times and requires as much, if not more, grooming. I've not heard of many SD groups going with doodles...and the ones that have don't have a TON of success with them...they're hit or miss just like the other breeds. Labs and goldens and poodles if needed are still the best choices for SDs for organizations, imho.

Totally. We actually had two guide dogs come in today, both Labradoodles. One of them was very mellow and easy going, even with his harness off he was pretty relaxed, goofy, but relaxed. He had more of a poodle/fluffy coat. The other one they had was very aloof, jumpy, nervous even with his harness on, his coat was very wirey. I'm not sure how he passed guide dog school - his owner does have a small amount of vision so maybe they placed him with her because she isn't 100% reliant on him, but he was definitely not the supposed "happy go lucky dog" people claim ALL labradoodles are. I've never seen a guide dog act so freaked out about everything. Even with their harnesses off, the guide dogs that come into our clinic are goofy/happy/hyper but never aloof or weird. of course, all of the other guide dogs that come into our clinic are full Labradors.

I hate the idea of designer dogs regardless of WHY. We see TONS of them in flyball...border-jacks (border collie/jack russell terrier),

Why on earth would you cross a border collie and a jack russel?! That's just asking for trouble LOL.

I hate the idea of designer dogs regardless of WHY. We see TONS of them in flyball...border-jacks (border collie/jack russell terrier),

Why on earth would you cross a border collie and a jack russel?! That's just asking for trouble LOL.

Jump heights in flyball are based on the shortest dog on the team...so people breed fast BCs to fast Staffies or JRTs for a fast *short-er* dog. And they are good, fast dogs...but honestly, I don't think it's good and or necessary.

"I don't have any idea if my dogs respect me or not, but they're greedy and I have their stuff." -- Patty Ruzzo

"Dogs don't want to control people. They want to control their own lives." --John Bradshaw